President Obama appears to be making a mistake born out of his rigid character structure.

People with his particular personality type (See my chart on this HERE: are very good at getting things done, and they generally have a high degree of integrity. This certainly describes our current president. These types are sometimes, though, so overly focused on accomplishing goals that they can miss the bigger picture. I believe that this is the case in Mr. Obama's apparent decision not to have his Justice Department legally pursue the high crimes of the Bush administration.

Obama mistakenly thinks it's enough to clean up our act going forward and simply stop government, the military and the financial community from committing crimes from now on, without having to face any consequences for their heinous actions up to now, except in the political arena, of course. Oh, and maybe firing a CEO or two and cutting back on those bonuses. The president doesn't want to be distracted from solving the multitude of problems that the rampant malfeasance of the last 30 years have caused. I understand that. I appreciate that. Getting things done is a refreshing change from the behavior of the morons and hound dogs who've been running things since 1980, and that includes the Clintons and the majority of the mealy-mouthed, wimped-out Democrats, not just the retrogressive hawks and closeted queens and pedophiles posing as conservative Republicans.

President Obama must understand that one day another Dick Cheney may slip into the White House after the American people have gone back to sleep again, as they are wont to do, and we must have laws and limits in place to regulate the violent, greedy, egotistical impulses of that prospective person in power. Mr. Obama cannot presume that our next leader will have his integrity. He cannot presume that the availability of an apparatus for domestic spying won't be misused for personal and political gain. He cannot presume that letting the previous administration go unpunished legally for their violations of human rights and for their war crimes won't encourage other leaders to do it again.

The good news is that Barack Obama is not stuck in his character structure to a large, disabling degree. He has a great deal of adult self available to him. That means, he is flexible enough to re-examine and reconsider his decisions. He listens and he learns. I feel confident about that. I hope he listens and reconsiders his decisions in these areas.


Anonymous said...

Hey Pete,
I have a question for you. Is it possible for two or three (or a whole bunch of people) to disagree on something, anything, without one or more of them possessing a "flaw"?
I know I'm doubling back a little to our old discussion of relativity here, but I think this question, in it's purest and sincerest form, is worthy of your consideration.
I'm getting the sense from a lot of your postings over time that there is becoming a pattern of defining people with a different opinion than yours as fundamentally "flawed". So is it possible to disagree without being "flawed"?
It seems very apparent in this most recent posting about Obama's unwillingness to prosecute the Bush administration that this decision is simply reflecting a flaw in his character structure. Isn't it possible that this decision is purely for political expediency? Consider the idea of him pursuing this measure while the economy around us is collapsing. Wouldn't that open him up to a lot of people accusing him of ignoring the problems at hand for the sake of getting back at the guy that caused the problems. If a ship is sinking because the Captain ran into a rock, I don't think the appropriate action is to hold a hearing to punish the captain. You grab some buckets and start bailing water out of the boat so you can fix the leak. Once the ship is righted, then you can think about taking actions against the captain.
Obviously this is my opinion and Obama's opinion as well. But I'm failing to make the connection between my opinion and any possible rigid character structure that I possess.
But, really I don't want to make this thread about this particular point of Obama's policy. But rather, I'd be interested in your answer to the main question at hand. Is it possible for two, more or less "unflawed", people to disagree? Or does the act of disagreeing predispose one or the other to an absolute "flaw" based on that opinion?

Thanks Pete.

Anonymous said...


I'm new to this forum.. Hope to have nice time around here...

so how is everyone doing? Dennis from [url=]Personal Loans[/url] website!

Anonymous said...

hi every person,

I identified after previous months and I'm very excited much to commence participating. I are basically lurking for the last month but figured I would be joining and sign up.

I am from Spain so please forgave my speaking english[url=].[/url][url=].[/url][url=].[/url]


blogger templates 3 columns | Make Money Online